I'm not sure which memorial to Lincoln it is that GK is describing.

I've always found the Lincoln Memorial in Washington quite inspiring in it's stark but powerful silence. His tomb in Springfield, on the other hand, is indeed a dark, cold cavern. But the new Lincoln Library, also in Springfield, shows that the presidential library can be an inspiring place as well. I have yet to visit, but look forward to seeing it for myself soon to see if it lives up to the reviews I have read.

I am also interested to see how it compares with those of Kennedy and Carter. The Kennedy facility in Boston is pretty, but rather dry. The Carter facility by itself is a mere repository, but coming as it does within the broader Carter Center, and all that institution stands for, increased, for me, its import.

In all, I think that any memorial serves best when it inspires one to remember, reflect and learn. Be it an obsidian wall, a white marble statue, a library, a poem, song, book or dance, what matters is whether it touches the observer in a way consistent with that person or event being memorialized.

Tim Howe

Here's the deal with Guillen. He is once again being pilloried for saying or doing something which is hardly uncommon.

Am I in favor of homophobic slurs? God, no. But we're talking about professional male sports teams, here. Wanna know why there aren't any "out" current players in the major male sports here? Because virtually all of the pro locker rooms are bastions of homophobia. I suppose a sociologist could devote a whole career to the issues behind why there is an undercurrent of homophobia amongst a group of young, buff men who regularly shower together, but that's not my point here.

The point is that Ozzie's language is standard fare in locker rooms all over the country (and not just the pros). It's a shame, yeah. We all wish it weren't so. But stop with all BS about Ozzie being some kind of aberrant, frothing-at-the-mouth bigot. Just like many in the press need to stop with all the BS about Ozzie being some kind of blood-thirsty freak for wanting a pitcher to throw at an opponent after one of his own guys got plunked. Ozzie is NOT the exception, he's the rule.

You want to change the culture of pro sports? Knock yourself out. But Ozzie isn't the cause of what may be wrong, merely a symptom.

I'm waiting for the administration and its defenders to trumpet these arrests as "proof" that the enhanced surveillance (read, spying on Americans) is justified. In doing so, they will conveniently forget that their unconstitutional domestic spying program had nothing to do with this case. Somebody dropped a dime on a bunch of goof-balls, who may have been motivated to do some bad things, but were obviously just one step above the Keystone Kops in the organizational/competence department. That means it was just old-fashioned police work, not hi-tech spying, that did the job.

Andrea Mitchell, subbing for Russert on MTP, tried to get Chuck Shumer to bite on this on Sunday. He dodged by saying he expected Lieberman to win, so the question wasn't one he was willing to entertain. My hunch is that Lieberman has gone off the reservation so often as it is, that they don't want to piss him off and completely lose his vote for the remainder of the term. Privately, however, I would guess most would say "Joe's my friend, but I'm damned tired of him voting like a republican 90% of the time. We need a reliable DEMOCRAT vote from Connecticut."

Zelasko's most painful moment, by far, had to be the interview with the family of the guy who hit the home run for the NL. I dozed off early, so I missed his name, though there was a vignette with him talking about "24."

Another botch job: the description of Brad Penny's fastball as "boring" and "heavy." Since Fox obviously doesn't want any actual baseball fans watching the game, you would think they would have tried to explain what they meant by that for casual fans of schmaltz who had tuned in.

Re: precedent in Jones v Clinton.

File this under "Law of Unintended Consequences," subhead "karma."

This is why a few moderately intelligent Republican senators think that the so-called 'nuclear option' on filibustering nominees is a bad idea. And why they also aren't particularly fond of the line-item veto.

Sauce for the goose, indeed.

I'm reminded, in the passage discussing the scientific objections to the existence of miracles, by something my theology professor said long ago: "a miracle is the suspension of natural laws by one with the power to do so."

While I remain mostly agnostic, I can look around and see just as many arguments for the existence of "God" (the beauty of a frozen waterfall being one example) as against (the continuing cruelties of disease and poverty and war). I have no quarrel with religion, or with religious people. My only quarrel is when someone insists that their religion, their faith, must control my life. If their "God" exists in the manner they claim, I should think they would be secure in a faith that "He" will, in time, reveal "Himself" to me in the same way the "He" reached them. They should have no need to legislate "His" existence and codify the way I or anyone else worships "Him."

And worse, when an argument is supported by a claim that "God" has decided it to be so (whatever "it" happens to be). To my way of thinking, this ends any hope at all of compromise, and serves too many times as a crutch for what would otherwise be a flawed position. It invites, it seems, a fight -- a crusade -- to the death, as we see today all 'round the world.